Tenth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change
December 6-17, 2004
Buenos Aires, Argentina
At their tenth annual Conference, COP 10 in Buenos Aires, parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change prepared for the imminent entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, and skirmished again over the terms for possible consideration of next steps in the international climate effort. In two weeks of talks, negotiators tied up loose ends on technical aspects of the Protocol, produced a modest new “Buenos Aires Work Programme” on adaptation, and agreed to convene a “Seminar of Government Experts” in May that provides an opening for discussing possible future efforts but explicitly “does not open any negotiations leading to new commitments.”
The Tenth Session of the Conference of the Parties came against the backdrop of Kyoto’s impending entry into force. With Russia’s ratification in November, the Protocol is set to take effect on February 16, establishing the first binding international commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions and an international emissions trading system to promote cost-effective reductions.
Following U.S. rejection of Kyoto in 2001, the annual COPs had been marked by deep uncertainty over the fate of the Protocol. While Kyoto’s resurrection by Russia provided some air of relief in Buenos Aires, at least for the Protocol’s supporters, that mood quickly gave way to a new anxiety: whether it will be possible to strengthen the international effort beyond 2012 (the end of the first commitment period under Kyoto).
A central issue in Buenos Aires was whether countries were prepared to create a space within the formal process to even begin considering the question of next steps. Technically at least, Kyoto’s entry into force requires negotiations starting in 2005 toward a new round of climate commitments. But in negotiations under Kyoto, the United States would be only an observer, not a party. In informal settings, delegates from both developed and developing countries show increasing interest in “post-Kyoto” approaches that could lead the international effort in new directions. The European Union has been the principal advocate of exploring possible next steps within the formal process. With European industry worried about the competitiveness impacts of Kyoto’s emission targets, EU governments want to show they are engaging other countries in discussions to broaden and extend commitments post-2012. Traditionally, developing countries have opposed any moves that could lead to new commitments for them. But at COP 10, the G-77 negotiating group split, with China, India and the OPEC countries maintaining a hard-line position, at least officially, but some members open to more forward-leaning language. The United States, meanwhile, came to Buenos Aires adamantly opposed to any discussion with a view to the future.
The compromise decision on the May seminar makes no direct reference to the post-2012 period, and makes clear the seminar is not a path to negotiating new commitments. But its language does provide an opening for parties to begin exploring alternative paths forward.
Among the key outcomes at COP 10:
Seminar of Governmental Experts
At COP 8 in New Delhi, the EU had proposed the launch of a new process to consider future commitments, only to be rebuffed by the United States and developing countries. In Buenos Aires, the host Argentine government advanced a more modest proposal: a Seminar of Governmental Experts to “analyze future actions by the international community to confront the challenges of climate change,” and to report to COP 11.
The EU sought to go further, proposing a report from the seminar “with a view to taking a decision on further steps at COP 11.” The United States, however, sought to contain the seminar “to an information exchange on practical implementation of existing national policies.” It proposed that “issues of future negotiations, frameworks, or mandates” be explicitly excluded, and that there be “no written or oral report.” The G77 and China offered a similar proposal.
Over the course of the second week, a compromise began to form around language borrowed from the Delhi Declaration adopted at COP 8, with the seminar now described as an exchange of views on “actions relating to mitigation and adaptation to assist Parties to continue to develop effective and appropriate responses to climate change.” However, differences remained as the final day of closed-door negotiations stretched through the night. The draft presented the following morning, when talks moved back into the open, was promptly opposed by India, which proposed an amendment stating explicitly that the seminar was not a path to negotiating future commitments for developing countries.
China, Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries supported India’s proposal, but two other developing countries – South Africa and Tuvalu (representing small island states) – supported the text as presented. The EU, Canada, Japan, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, and Norway also supported the text as presented. Brazil said it could “live with” the text. The United States was silent.
With no compromise after 90 minutes of open debate, the issue went back to informal consultations among Argentina, India, Brazil, the United States and the EU. Their compromise text, accepted by the full COP, states: “Proceedings of the seminar will be made available by the secretariat to Parties for their consideration, bearing in mind that this seminar does not open any negotiations leading to new commitments.”
The final decision frames the seminar as “an informal exchange of information” on measures governments are undertaking to implement their existing commitments and on ways they can “continue to develop” their climate efforts. The seminar will be held either immediately before or after the annual meeting of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies and will be co-chaired by a developed country and a developing country government expert.
The second major focus of the negotiations was a set of issues encompassing both adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change, a key concern for least developed countries and small island states, and adaptation to the impacts of mitigation efforts, the principal concern of OPEC countries. The result was a series of modest steps packaged as the Buenos Aires Programme of Work on Adaptation and Response Measures.
The agreement further specifies the means for implementing the decision on adaptation measures reached at COP 7 in Marrakesh. On adaptation to climate impacts, the Buenos Aires Programme spells out activities to improve data collection, strengthen training and in-country capacity, undertake pilot projects, and promote technology transfer; and calls for three regional workshops and an expert meeting over the next two years to help identify adaptation needs and concerns. On adaptation to response measures, the decision calls for expert meetings on ways to promote economic diversification in oil-producing countries.
The decision also requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) to develop a five-year work program to further advance work on adaptation to climate impacts.
COP 10 also wrapped up the final loose ends relating to implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, including:
Venue for COP 11/MOP 1
COP 11 will be the occasion of the first COP/MOP – the Conference of the Parties convening in parallel with a Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. With no countries formally offering to host the meeting, the COP decided it would be held in Bonn, where the UNFCCC secretariat is based, unless an alternative venue is offered and accepted by February 1. Canada and Egypt were reported to be considering offering to host the meeting.
The full text of COP 10 decisions  is available on the website of the UNFCCC Secretariat.
Our Reports Released at COP 10
We released two new reports in Buenos Aires on December 13:
The papers were developed as input to our Climate Dialogue at Pocantico , an ongoing series of discussions among senior policymakers and stakeholders from 15 countries on options for next steps in the international climate effort.